In the United States in 2010 according to the CDC there were 11,078 murders by firearms; according to the FBI there were 8,775; and according to the Congressional Research Service there were 9,812. Let us average the number to 9,888 murders by firearm in 2010.
According to numbers from the National Institute of Justice in 2009 there was 310 million firearms in the united states. This means that in 2010 only 0.000031% of all firearms in the united states were used to murder someone.
I don't want to address your other points here, but could you confirm that the numbers you are using include all non-suicide gun deaths, and not just murders? George Zimmerman didn't commit murder, as we all know, but the death caused by his gun is exactly the kind of gun death you are trying to address with your broader argument.
If two people are holding just spoons, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in hours.
At what point is your life more valuable than someone trying to kill you?
This is a good question, but a flawed way of looking at the situation. Attaching value to the life of someone else is fraught with difficulties, and danger, when the measurement of their value is your own life, and if you are doing the evaluation.
For example, in any situation, any at all, I believe my life to be more valuable than anyone else's life. This is whether they are trying to kill me or serving my dinner. I'm on the inside. I'm the opposite of impartial.Although it's best to avoid being put in a situation where that evaluation actually matters, I don't think it's a good thing to avoid the evaluation altogether.
My way of looking at it is that both your life and the life of your attacker are of equal worth (in some "intrinsic" sense), but there is a difference in terms of the broader impact on society. Typically, someone attacking you is probably more harmful / less helpful to other people than you.
The second problem with the question is that you are asking about the hypothetical outcome of a current situation, and then judging the value of the life of the other person based on what you believe might be the possible outcome of the situation.
The only way to truly or impartially judge whose life is more valuable is by someone not-you, and at a time not-now but later.
Some examples...
Situation A: I think someone is trying to kill me. I shoot them dead. Outcome A: I killed someone. That person did not kill someone. Judgement A: I am the person who killed someone, and the other person is not the person who killed someone. A killer is has less value than a non-killer.
Even if you don't look at it the way I put forth above, this is still an oversimplification which is easily countered by a refinement like "someone who, unprovoked, attempts to kill someone else".
It might be weird to look at situations like this systematically, but it's the only way to come to any logical conclusion. If we take for granted that people not dying is better than people dying, then the best possible course of action for less death is you not shooting to kill someone.
That too depends on the situation. Most notably, that judgement fails if it's not simply a matter of one life against another - if, instead, there are multiple lives at risk on one side of the matter.
If there is an escalation of violence to the point where it is kill or be killed, what does one do?
There's a big sticking point in this question for me, beyond the same issues it shares with the previous question:
The "point where it is kill or be killed" changes with different methods of killing.
If two people are holding just spoons, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in hours.Not really true. First of all, if you have spoons you also have hands, feet, teeth, etc. and I don't think it would take hours to kill someone. More importantly, though, I think you would in fact never reach the point of "kill or be killed", because in that kind of fight it's entirely reasonable to incapacitate someone without killing them.
The worst logical outcome is that, for any violent confrontation, both parties have a gun, both parties know the other party has a gun, and that they both ACT ENTIRELY RATIONALLY.
I cannot agree with your idea of what constitutes "rationality".
My question is what do people think about the idea that free will is total and not influenced by tools? Or the idea that tools take away our free will because of a desire to use the tool? If you feel that guns exist to kill people, and if a person has a gun they will use it to murder someone, how do you explain the extreme rarity in the United States that a gun actually kills another person?
This "free will" assumes everyone is an unemotional, flawless being who has exceptional, accurate and objective reasoning for every millisecond of the day. Free will is minuscule in these situations.
The mistakes which lead to death by gun shot wounds are made in fight or flight at the very base neurological level where the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems are charged to make sure you live. You can feel a tiny burst of this in every day situations when you are genuinely surprised. Layer upon this how you respond to such situations based upon prior experiences, then add your emotional state and how it evolves. It's all fine to say one would be reasonable in their decision making on a forum but I guarantee in real life it is different.
Your numbers seem a little misleading.
There are 3 different numbers that are being referred to as
Does murder include all loss of life or is it only referring to premeditated death? I think it would be logical to use a figure derived from gun shot related wounds and deaths. This would include suicide, the various classifications of mortality that is obfuscated by the legal system. It would also include those people that survived gunshots because really who shoots someone and says "just kidding".
Were those 310 million firearms inclusive of all exhibition pieces, all those on sale at the local gunmart, defence force's weapons, museum pieces and collection pieces? Rather than using the gun count as the subject, why not use - person that owns a gun? Wouldn't this be more logical. I know it would be a step towards accuracy but knowing accurately who owns the guns is very difficult.
Your reference to Congressional Research Service indicates numbers for 2009 not 2010. It also shows 31,347 fatalities. Non lethal gun related crimes - 326,090.
The FBI page seems to be dealing with murders very specifically classified.
The CDC death by firearm classified as the following for 2010 - Accidental discharge 606 Suicide 19,392 Assault 11,078 Legal Intervention 412 Undetermined intent 252 Operations of War 9 (?)
Luke: Yes those numbers are for homicides only, they do not include self defense shootings, police shootings, or suicides. If I remember correctly all numbers combined is somewhere around 30,000 per year.
In response to Luke's breakdown of situations of which one or more party may or may not have a gun. I think this method of thinking is assuming that both parties are rational thinkers and neither would otherwise want to kill anyone, and it is the gun that is the reason for a death. However this mindset completely ignores murder, especially premeditated murder like what happens at mass shootings. In these situations only one person having a gun insures the most people get murdered as time elapsed until police with guns arrive and the situation is resolved. This is an example of someone with intent to harm choosing a tool to accomplish that objective.
I think Luke's conclusion that people who choose to carry a gun are either “ignorant, an idiot, or a psychopath“ ignores the fact that there are people in our society who simply want to cause others harm, and says that a fear of those people and a desire to be able to defend against them is irrational.
I agree with Luke that in certain circumstances both parties having a gun will escalate the situation farther then if just one party or no parties had a gun. However even if both parties have a gun, don't both still have a choice in if they use the gun or not? Like this situation where 2 people with guns shot each other. Both of them had the choice to leave the situation, however neither of them took it and now they are both dead. You say that had the guns not been there then the shooting would have happened. But where does the personal responsibility for their actions go? Are not both of them fully responsible for choosing to use their gun?
Luke brought up the Martin-Zimmerman shooting and how does that fit in with free will and the choice to use a gun? I feel Zimmerman had total choice over his actions. He choose to confront someone. That situation turned into a fight in which Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head bashed against the pavement. Because Zimmerman had a gun he then had a choice to make. To continue a fist fight in which he was getting head trauma, or use the gun at his disposal to end the fight. Maybe Zimmerman would have been okay after a short hospital stay. Luke seems of the opinion that it would have been better had the gun not been there, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman may or may not be alive. I say that because there was a gun there, Zimmerman bears the weight of responsibility for choosing using it. He took a life to perhaps save his own. But just because there was a gun there does not mean that Zimmerman HAD to use it.
SWAT, I think you bring up some good points about having tools at our disposal it will change our options when choosing actions. In your situation with the cougar you would still have the option for running away, but the existence of the gun will make you likely to use it. And some people will be likely to use the easiest method of accomplishing a task rather then thinking about the best method. This is the idea of “if they have a gun they will want to use it”. And you make a point that for some people this is true. But is this not saying that because they have options to a situation at their disposal, and are likely to use one rather then another option, they then are not responsible for making the choice? In other words, we fear giving people a powerful tool, because they might not make the right decision to use it. But does it not all come down to a persons decision to use a gun or not use a gun?
Both sides of your proposed viewpoints are correct perspectives but they're only looking at their half of the beast and thus the whole picture is missed.
Could you rephrase what it was that you thought I was missing? I think it went over my head in your post.
@ Luke: Very good points on it all. I think I can agree with the response to the first question.
I see your point about game theory analysis of how a confrontation could go down. it makes some sense. Only concern I think (it's late so I might miss something) is you're accounting for perfect knowledge, 100% application of a weapon if the intent is not to step down from a conflict, and the ability to presume as, bellinger mentioned, that both parties are rational people solving a dispute and one party does not will wanton or explicit harm against the other for whatever purpose (sexual assault, revenge, making bones, race crime, serial murder, etc)
I also don't know if you account for the presumption that everyone is always armed unless proven otherwise which can be factored into a decision to carry, I.e. If someone were to threaten me they would have a weapon, like a gun or blade. I must assume this because we live in a society with millions of weapons and there's a chance they could attack someone who has one even if it's not myself, so why would they go into a fight without being at least equally armed if not superior. They may come in numbers too.
So on one hand an argument could be made that by banning weapons in the hands of the free, it decreases the threat posed by civilians meaning criminals would be able to do more of their crime without needing a gun to shoot good guys with guns.
The problem is if they keep the guns then they now have a significant power advantage over everyone but the police, and cops will still have guns and that will compel to require an armed outlaw in turn.
This is fine if we are submitting to letting crime take place unless a sanctioned police team does the arresting/killing for us. It doesn't work all the time and we have to pay people to do that job but it keeps things tidy for the most part.
But that doesn't help YOU (or me or the individual) when a problem comes knocking, and the police are needed but not available, or they are incompetent at best to begin with.
So the question many Americans face is 'do you want to let some criminal scum have his way with you simply for virtue of holding a pistol, and be defenseless to stop it?' And the implied answer is 'No, you're an American, you will hold your ground and not give in to treachery and thugs!'
Ultimately it's a lot of trust to rely on anyone to get between you and harms way if it comes...
So the question many Americans face is 'do you want to let some criminal scum have his way with you simply for virtue of holding a pistol, and be defenseless to stop it?' And the implied answer is 'No, you're an American, you will hold your ground and not give in to treachery and thugs!'
This, and most of your arguments, are predicated on the idea that everyone, if not constantly embattled at all times, are at least in a constant risk of violent assault. When I see people espouse this kind of stuff I experience some pretty extreme prejudice: I assume they are paranoid as fuck.
Your risk of being assaulted has almost entirely to do with location and socioeconomics. If you live outside a city, your chances are pretty low; if you live in a moderately affluent place your chances are even lower! Yet the sort of people I see advocating for the constant carry of guns and knives as self-defense weapons on the internet are all 18-25, let's say, white males who live in suburban or rural neighborhoods, basically the lowest risk factor of all time. Your life is not a "true crime" novel. There aren't thugs with chains and knives waiting around every corner in Topeka, Kansas. I grew up in a reasonably nice neighborhood in Philadelphia that bordered on a lot of not-so-nice neighborhoods. I lived in that neighborhood for 25 years, and now I've lived in NYC for 6. I think I've known two people who got mugged, and never at gunpoint. I've never been mugged, never had a gun or even a knife drawn on me. The worst I ever suffered was a beatdown when I was a kid.
Furthermore, this assumption that you are constantly at risk of harm when you are walking down the street ignores what many police studies have shown us: most violent crimes are committed by someone you know. There is no phantom mugger coming to take your wallet and your life. Even if you are mugged, that mugger almost certainly does not have a gun. On the infinitesimal chance that he does, it may not even be loaded! In NYC punishments for crimes with loaded weapons are much more harsh than crimes without.
Throwing out this falderal about "guns are just tools" ignores the fact that a gun is inherently and immediately more lethal. I said it earlier in this thread: the psychological mechanism of pulling a trigger to shoot someone in the back is different than that of jamming an axe into the back of someone's skull. If a person axed an eighteen year old black woman who'd just been in a car accident, we'd institutionalize them! Instead, a person shoots that 18 year old black woman in head and it's castle doctrine. The culture has decided your right to decide you're scared enough to kill someone is greater than a person's right to live, especially if that person is black and you are white.
"Guns are tools" also presumes that humans are rational robots who only act in their best interest. Robot-Zimmerman would've had no racial prejudice, and would've correctly concluded that Martin was a 17 year old kid coming back from the corner store. Actual Human-Zimmerman decided the way to end a tussle that he almost-certainly instigated was to shoot another human being. Zimmerman was certainly in no danger when he instigated the encounter. I'm willing to bet that his life was not in any actual peril when he ended the encounter, either, but the law says it's okay to shoot someone if you think that you maybe-kind of-sort of-might be in danger of dying. Zimmerman might've acted on instinct, and internalized paranoia, not conscious prejudice, but that thought is probably cold comfort to Martin's family.
"Guns are tools" also comes with this corollary of "training and experience overcomes these obstacles," which I'm sure is true to a certain extent, but also ignores, for example, cases where servicemen -- whose training should be the best in the world! -- are involved in lethal domestic violence. If their training was not sufficient to stop them from murdering a spouse, or child, or other loved one, then whose will be?
People do not act rationally when fight or flight is engaged, as Skope said. Assuming that we live in a rational world where everyone acts perfectly at all times, except for the 1% who are INSANE BLOODTHIRSTY CRIMINALS COMING TO KILL ME RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO TIME FOR THE COPS I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF is this really bizarre paranoia that breeds mistrust; you've convinced yourself that your feeling of security is more important a theoretical person's life, so when a real person theoretically threatens your life, you are already willing to pull the trigger.
I see carrying a gun or other item for self defense not so much as "My life is a battlefield, I need protection at all times!" but more to "have options." In a lot of cases pulling it out might make things worse and in others it might save your life. A lot of people who do carry will admit that its a very tiny chance that they'll actually need to use it. The problem is that some people get in that certain mindset and seem to "shoot first and ask questions later" including police. I don't think its a problem for properly trained people to carry a gun, but that mindset of always in danger or looking for trouble can make that person just as dangerous as the "bad guy." Side note, I know in some states a concealed carry permit holder actually has to shoot more at the range than police officers do.
Also, if you're afraid of being mugged, buy a shitty cheap wallet and put a couple $20's and some old gift cards in it. Decoy wallet all the way.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dave here; there is a definite tendency to overestimate the risk of violent crime, and to underestimate other risks associated with guns.
That being said, it seems to me that the paranoia he is speaking of is part of a wider trend in American society. I won't say that it's purely a right-wing issue, but the conservative mindset definitely seems to be heavily based on this type of paranoia.
Here's a couple of quick examples; I'm sure one could easily come up with a few more. - "currency debasement" - government debt -> turning into Greece - "breakdown of social order" due to erosion of "family values"
"Guns are tools" also comes with this corollary of "training and experience overcomes these obstacles," which I'm sure is true to a certain extent, but also ignores, for example, cases where servicemen -- whose training should be the best in the world! -- are involved in lethal domestic violence. If their training was not sufficient to stop them from murdering a spouse, or child, or other loved one, then whose will be?
Shit, they have domestic violence training and shoot-houses now? They really DO train you for everything these days.
Yeah, pretty much. But you can't expect me to take it seriously when you point out that people are human, not rational-acting robots in every situation, and then go on to make the assumption that trained people don't make mistakes and make rational judgements in every situation - particularly stressful situations like your partner and/or children being in danger. Then, on top of that, you're assuming that servicemen are trained for that kind of situation. And then go on to say that when you go into fight-or-flight mode, you don't act normally or rationally!
You can't have it both ways, man - You can't have people are imperfect and irrational in fight or flight mode, but then have "Except trained people, but even they kill people, so you will be worse." Trained people are still people. They still fuck up, they still don't always act rationally, and they're not nessissarily trained for the situations they end up in, even if they're trained for other things.
Frankly, I'd rather have a cop - for all the faults of police training - armed in that situation than a rifleman. Because the cop's training is focused towards killing as a last resort, he's more likely to go for a capture, rather than a kill - almost the direct opposite from what a rifleman is trained to do. Though, cops still make horrendous mistakes in those situations, and still kill family members on occasion - but I'd be willing to suggest that it's less likely due to what they're trained to do.
I appreciate what you're saying, and what you're getting at, you make a lot of good points, and I agree with most of what you said - but what you're saying in that section is such a vast oversimplification that I can't take that part seriously.
As I've said before, I don't think I'm in risk, I'm not walking around New London expecting to come across the O.K. Corral gunfight (Hell when I visited Tombstone I was not expecting to come across the O.K. Corral gunfight, yet I did, and it was pretty entertaining.) And I don't personally carry a weapon anyway.
But even so A: You don't need to prepare for what happens 99% of the time because that's going to already be part of your routine, you prepare for the 1% outlier cases; which is why people have spare tires, windshield breakers, first-aid kits, fire extinguishers, handguns, aircraft have oxygen masks and floating seat cushions, and so on.
The question then is, can we trust human beings to carry guns in public to protect themselves against outlier cases, and are we OK with the application of that violence in response to an incident? Are we OK with the situations where the wrong thing happens, and is the cost to benefit ratio something we can afford?
Hell when I visited Tombstone I was not expecting to come across the O.K. Corral gunfight, yet I did, and it was pretty entertaining.
Even in Tombstone right before the O.K. Corral gunfight, they weren't expecting the O.K. Corral.
Also, if I ever gain the power of time travel, I'm going to set up shop right across from the O.K. Corral with another corral, and call it the Bloody Excellent Corral. But that's neither here nor there.
But even so A: You don't need to prepare for what happens 99% of the time because that's going to already be part of your routine, you prepare for the 1% outlier cases;
By that reasoning I should have got my gun license for W.A. and made sure to carry it or a knife every time I went to what is sensationalised on the local news as "the most dangerous suburb in Australia" - as there are a few stabbings and fights that occur in this suburb, can't remember the last time there was any guns shot in this area.
You know what's there in the daytime? A bunch of cafes and restaraunts. At night, a bunch of nightclubs and all night kebab places. When you go to this place you tend to get drunk or tipsy or high. In these states it is very hard to make any rational decisions in a hurry. If you're the designated driver you also have this extra weight of protecting friends who don't have all their faculties.
It's a great place for a fight. I wonder if I the necessary tools were sprinkled amongst the people that frequent the areas. Instead of fights and bruises or stair downs or push and shove confrontations. You will 100% end up with increased homicide rate (from zero).
Making it slightly difficult to get a gun is the difference between no deaths to multiple deaths.
From my youth it has become much safer as the police roam around the area till all the clubs shut down.
which is why people have spare tires, windshield breakers, first-aid kits, fire extinguishers, handguns, aircraft have oxygen masks and floating seat cushions, and so on.
Here is an educational show's take on these items.
See I'll explain the analogy further.
Spare tires, windshield breakers, first aid kits, fire extinguishers, hand guns, aircraft, oxygen masks and floating seat cushions are all circles. All circles in this analogy can be used to kill someone else. All these circles could also be called "tools".
Now can you finish the analogy?
The large circle is representative of one thing which is specifically a weapon, which has a primary use case of gravely wounding or killing someone. Yes, you got it, it's the gun!
Now here is a skit that we could use as an analogy to our little debate say where Dave, Luke and others are coming from.
See Vinny is the portion of the American public who feel as if they need to carry a gun. They are paranoid due to a multitude of influences on their life, whether it be watching American News or being in the mafia. In addition to this he has easy access to weapons, whether it be retail or distributed by his Mafia captain.
In this situation he is cordially invited to a surprise party thrown by his friends for him.
When he is surprised in a situation where he is feeling suspicious or paranoid he lashes out with his well trained instincts and precision that he learned when handling weapons to result in killing nearly all his friends.
If we removed the gun from Vinny, he would be suspicious, paranoid, surprised and then happy because he gets to have birthday cake with this friends and your Aunt's pasta.
If Vinny is that paranoid and armed why are his friends throwing him a party that is likely to agitate his paranoia and get them shot?
No one is advocating that drunk people should be armed. Designated driver could be, especially in an area where drinking and trouble is prevalent.
What the flying fuck? What the fucking fucking fuck? Are you fucking with us, or are your opinions of firearms around drunk people so utterly fucked that they are indistinguishable from trolling?
Meanwhile, I wasn't able to get online for the last few days, so what follows are some posts I wrote on Saturday...
Okay, I've got to put my previous comments in context. Every other developed country has a waaaaay lower gun death rate than in the USA, even those which have more guns per people than America. For example, in Iceland, they've recently had their very first gun death from a police shooting. Their first ever! Other countries with high gun ownership like Canada and Australia and Switzerland have a way fewer gun death incidents.
The main difference between the USA and these other countries is that Americans think self defense by killing others with guns is an acceptable course of action.
I think Luke's conclusion that people who choose to carry a gun are either “ignorant, an idiot, or a psychopath“ ignores the fact that there are people in our society who simply want to cause others harm, and says that a fear of those people and a desire to be able to defend against them is irrational.
The people who "simply want to cause others harm" are psychopaths, or otherwise mentally disturbed people. There is NO defending against these people.
If someone wants to commit premeditated murder, no legal gun ownership for self defense will stop that from happening. If someone wants you, specifically you, dead, they will kill you in a way that you don't see coming, and in a way that you can't protect yourself from. Having a gun yourself will not help.
If someone wants to kill in a predetermined way, but in an indiscriminate manner, no legal gun ownership for self defense will prevent that from happening. The reason is that terrorists will use non-gun methods like bombings, flying planes into buildings, other suicide attacks, or otherwise killing from a distance in time or space.
Massacres in schools and cinemas and other places make the news because they are relatively rare, compared to the vast majority of gun deaths. We can't decide policy on gun ownership on these events because they are planned, by those who carry them out, to be as harmful and disruptive as possible.
What other cases are there where someone goes out with the intention to kill? Not to harm, as that is a very fuzzy word, but to kill? Nobody, even criminals who want to rob and steal, actively intends or plans to kill their victims. Why would they?
So what it comes down to, in America, is that your property is worth more to you than the criminal's life is to them. This is FUCKED UP!
In the UK, if you kill anyone with a gun, you are in the wrong. There is no situation where having a gun and using it against anyone, even someone breaking into your home, is condoned by the law. Your response has to be appropriate to the threat, and guns are always inappropriate.
So the question many Americans face is 'do you want to let some criminal scum have his way with you simply for virtue of holding a pistol, and be defenseless to stop it?' And the implied answer is 'No, you're an American, you will hold your ground and not give in to treachery and thugs!'
Outside of America, the lives of others are worth more than inconvenience to you. Because that is what it comes down to, in the end. Criminals are shot, and the shooters aren't punished, simply because of convenience.
It's inconvenient to take your family to an upstairs room and hide, or take them out the back while criminals come in through the front of the house. It's inconvenient, when robbed, to fill out insurance from to have your stuff replaced. It's inconvenient to even have home insurance in the first place. It's inconvenient to keep your irreplaceable valuables hidden, rather than out on display.
It's way more convenient to simply kill someone coming into your home, despite having no evidence they mean to kill you. Because, and here's the sticking point, there is simply no evidence that they intend to harm you.
For example, some houses near my girlfriend's parents house were broken into, with laptops and iPad stolen from living rooms. Now, when we stay over there, we simply take our laptops and iPads upstairs to the bedroom overnight. If someone broke into the house, the idea that they might want to cause anyone physical harm is just laughable. The idea that they should be killed for wanting a laptop is just horrific!
You have to separate premeditated murder out from consideration. You also have to separate out terrorism, as politically motivated killings will happen anywhere (Boston, London, Madrid, etc, etc). You also have to separate out attacks by those with known mental problems and school massacres. These things are impossible to legislate against.
Logically, the best situation for reducing gun death is for only criminals and specialized police to be armed. It's the best way. Others can own guns for sport, but nobody is allowed to use guns against any human, any time, ever. Not even pointing a gun for intimidation, or displaying a gun as deterrent. All guns should be locked in safes or cases unless being used for sports or hunting purposes.
This means that if someone has a gun in public, they can be presumed to be a criminal. In fact, they are a criminal, by these new rules. This will be the new measure of "worth of life".
Game theory states:
If an armed criminal threatens violence with a gun, they can assume that nobody will be able to threaten their life. THIS IS GOOD. It means that they can safely rob anyone of their possessions without any physical harm. Everyone can hand over anything valuable. This is inconvenient, sure, but probably nobody will die.
The police can respond knowing that the perpetrator WAS WILLING TO POSSIBLY KILL someone. They didn't kill someone, but the fact they used a gun for intimidation is enough to know they are a criminal. They can make a measured response, with the default position being taking the person alive. It might be inconvenient not to shoot them, but let's hope police officers trained and allowed to use guns are also trained to put up with inconvenience.
This is how the rest of the developed world works! And it really does work. Criminals aren't indiscriminately killing people! Nobody feels the need to kill people to protect property.
Add guns to the situation above? Everything changes. Every situation is now dangerous for EVERYONE, not just for the criminals and the police. This is what you live with in America. Constant danger.
If you passed a law saying ALL non-sport public gun use is illegal and punishable, that will be a start. It will be inconvenient for the victims of robberies for a while, but inconvenience is okay for reducing danger to everyone.
Typically, someone attacking you is probably more harmful / less helpful to other people than you.
Except many, many, many people die because the "victim" thought they were being attacked and actually weren't.
Also, in the rest of the world, people are given a second chance. Kids gang up around a single victim and intimidate or attack them. They'll probably not murder anyone, and when they grow up, they'll probably not be a stupid kid any more. They are probably just poor or uneducated.
Or someone is just angry at you for something you've done. Road rage is understandable. You've just smashed up their car, and it looks like they might attack you. Should you kill them to defend yourself, with the assumption being them attacking you makes their life less valuable?
The entire idea of assigning value to life in any situation, and then using that valuation to determine if they should die or not is flawed.
Which is why I started off by saying I'm a not-killing absolutist. In NO situation should you ever kill someone. Even if that means you dying, you don't have the right to decide to take the life of someone else. Never. In every situation you should do all you can to escape, to avoid conflict, to deflect harm, to fight back as hard as possible. But not killing.
SWATrous is right that humans are not rational actors in stressful situations. Which means that game theory doesn't work in situations where killing is permissible in some cases and not permissible in others. Humans with guns will always default to the position that their killing is permissible.
Game theory only works if you assume humans are irrational, but then put rules in place to minimize deadly responses. If we put in place these rules (no legal gun use for any self-defense reason ever, and no intentional or preemptive killing ever) then game theory works.
We MUST protect all humans from irrational humans. Not allowing any guns for self defense ever is most logical course of action. You know, like the rest of the developed world outside of the USA.
That is why America is so awesome, we will kill you if you try to take our stuff. We value our stuff more than we value the life of a law breaker. This goes for pretty much ALL laws in the US.
It is not uncommon in the US to for people to secretly (sometimes publicly) hope for something really bad to happen to someone that we witness breaking the law. We want to see the mass murderer die in the police chase. We want to see the guy who cut us off get a ticket from the police officer parked around the corner. We want to read about home invasions where the perp got shot. We like our revenge.
For good or bad it is the dominant American perspective.
EDIT: what is wrong with the designated sober person being armed?
EDIT: what is wrong with the designated sober person being armed?
That's actually one of the parts of current US firearms law I agree with, at least in the states in which it applies - If you are carrying, you have to have a BAC of 0. If you have alcohol in your system, your CCW permit essentially doesn't apply, you are not allowed to carry. I don't think it's every state, but the states where it does apply are doing at least one thing right.
Our love of revenge is also affected by the nature of the crime.
If an adult kills another adult we want to see revenge. If an adult kills a child or a dog/cat then the gloves come off. In this case the percieved level of innocence lost has a huge impact on our desire for revenge.
Even areas where loss of life is not occurring we want to see some sort of revenge that goes beyond mere justice. How many members of this very forum have expressed an interest in seeing Fox News 'die in a fire' or expressed glee at various Republican politicians getting their comeuppance?
EDIT: what is wrong with the designated sober person being armed?
Nothing, if there is zero possibility that any other drunk person they interact with for the entire evening are armed, as well as zero possibility any other sober person any of the other drunk people interact with for the entire evening are armed.
Read my latest posts for the explanation as to why your idea of designated sober killers is utterly fucked up on so many level.
Typically, someone attacking you is probably more harmful / less helpful to other people than you.
Except many, many, many people die because the "victim" thought they were being attacked and actually weren't.Yes, people suck at decision-making, and that's something one needs to make allowances for, especially in situations where that judgement is impaired.
This isn't something that only applies to the question of self-defense with a gun, though; it's a general principle that people need to accept. When you take any action at all with drastic consequences you need to account for the fact that your own judgement is subject to many flaws.
However, I would still argue that if someone attacks you it's typically the better outcome that they die than you. Is this an absolute principle? Of course not; there are plenty of situations where this is not the case. More importantly, though, far better still are outcomes where neither of you die.
I strongly agree that you should almost never respond to apparent threats with lethal force; this is simply because that tends to result in better overall outcomes. Why? Because of the situations that involve neither person dying, which are clearly the best outcomes. Not using lethal force should be the default course of action. Indeed, even if you think it's "kill or be killed", the chance that you are wrong and there are better ways out is still enough that lethal force is still likely to be wrong.
Or someone is just angry at you for something you've done. Road rage is understandable. You've just smashed up their car, and it looks like they might attack you. Should you kill them to defend yourself, with the assumption being them attacking you makes their life less valuable?
No, you should not, for the reasons I've stated above, and common sense besides. The mere fact that someone attacks someone else clearly doesn't make it a good idea to end their life. Besides that, I don't think their life is "less valuable" even if they do attack you; I don't take an absolutist view on the point I made (as is clear from the language I used), and the value judgement relates to effects on the lives of other people rather than being an assignation of lesser worth to the attacker.
The entire idea of assigning value to life in any situation, and then using that valuation to determine if they should die or not is flawed.
I disagree strongly with this.
First of all, a value judgement is inherent in any decision you make, regardless of whether you make it explicitly, or if it's merely implicit in the decision itself. Attempting to avoid making such a value judgement does not make it go away.
One makes decisions that may help or harm other people on a daily basis, and those decisions, by their nature, involve value judgments of this type. Yes, they may not involve people's lives, but for the most part this is simply a matter of scale. Decisions involving peoples' lives just need to be taken much more seriously because of what's at stake.
You simply cannot avoid such decisions altogether. For example, even if individuals don't tend to make these kinds of decisions, governments definitely do. A fair number of the decisions governments make can cause people to live or die, or at least cause them significant suffering. As a voting citizen, it would simply be negligent not to make those kinds of judgments with regards to the actions of your government, because those decisions will be made regardless.
Even if you assert that no one has any right to make that kind of decision, decisions like it will still be made anyway; the main result is that you (and other people who take your position) will merely spend less time thinking critically about them.
Which is why I started off by saying I'm a not-killing absolutist. In NO situation should you ever kill someone. Even if that means you dying, you don't have the right to decide to take the life of someone else. Never. In every situation you should do all you can to escape, to avoid conflict, to deflect harm, to fight back as hard as possible. But not killing.
I cannot agree with the absolutist position. I think it's an essential principle, and almost always correct in most normal situations, but when framed as an absolutist statement it simply isn't true.
It is not uncommon in the US to for people to secretly (sometimes publicly) hope for something really bad to happen to someone that we witness breaking the law. We want to see the mass murderer die in the police chase. We want to see the guy who cut us off get a ticket from the police officer parked around the corner. We want to read about home invasions where the perp got shot. We like our revenge.
That kind of thinking isn't just a U.S. thing; very much of it is just human nature.
What bothers me about the U.S. is the tendency to glorify it.
Comments
For example, in any situation, any at all, I believe my life to be more valuable than anyone else's life. This is whether they are trying to kill me or serving my dinner. I'm on the inside. I'm the opposite of impartial.Although it's best to avoid being put in a situation where that evaluation actually matters, I don't think it's a good thing to avoid the evaluation altogether.
My way of looking at it is that both your life and the life of your attacker are of equal worth (in some "intrinsic" sense), but there is a difference in terms of the broader impact on society. Typically, someone attacking you is probably more harmful / less helpful to other people than you.
Even if you don't look at it the way I put forth above, this is still an oversimplification which is easily countered by a refinement like "someone who, unprovoked, attempts to kill someone else". That too depends on the situation. Most notably, that judgement fails if it's not simply a matter of one life against another - if, instead, there are multiple lives at risk on one side of the matter. There's a big sticking point in this question for me, beyond the same issues it shares with the previous question:
The "point where it is kill or be killed" changes with different methods of killing.
If two people are holding just spoons, and one attacks the other, the time it takes to reach the "point where it is kill or be killed" is going to be measured in hours.Not really true. First of all, if you have spoons you also have hands, feet, teeth, etc. and I don't think it would take hours to kill someone. More importantly, though, I think you would in fact never reach the point of "kill or be killed", because in that kind of fight it's entirely reasonable to incapacitate someone without killing them. I cannot agree with your idea of what constitutes "rationality".
The mistakes which lead to death by gun shot wounds are made in fight or flight at the very base neurological level where the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems are charged to make sure you live.
You can feel a tiny burst of this in every day situations when you are genuinely surprised. Layer upon this how you respond to such situations based upon prior experiences, then add your emotional state and how it evolves. It's all fine to say one would be reasonable in their decision making on a forum but I guarantee in real life it is different.
Your numbers seem a little misleading.
There are 3 different numbers that are being referred to as .
Does murder include all loss of life or is it only referring to premeditated death? I think it would be logical to use a figure derived from gun shot related wounds and deaths. This would include suicide, the various classifications of mortality that is obfuscated by the legal system. It would also include those people that survived gunshots because really who shoots someone and says "just kidding".
Were those 310 million firearms inclusive of all exhibition pieces, all those on sale at the local gunmart, defence force's weapons, museum pieces and collection pieces? Rather than using the gun count as the subject, why not use - person that owns a gun? Wouldn't this be more logical. I know it would be a step towards accuracy but knowing accurately who owns the guns is very difficult.
Your reference to Congressional Research Service indicates numbers for 2009 not 2010.
It also shows 31,347 fatalities.
Non lethal gun related crimes - 326,090.
The FBI page seems to be dealing with murders very specifically classified.
The CDC death by firearm classified as the following for 2010 -
Accidental discharge 606
Suicide 19,392
Assault 11,078
Legal Intervention 412
Undetermined intent 252
Operations of War 9 (?)
Accumulated death by firearms -
31,749
Non lethal injury by firearm - 32,163
In response to Luke's breakdown of situations of which one or more party may or may not have a gun. I think this method of thinking is assuming that both parties are rational thinkers and neither would otherwise want to kill anyone, and it is the gun that is the reason for a death. However this mindset completely ignores murder, especially premeditated murder like what happens at mass shootings. In these situations only one person having a gun insures the most people get murdered as time elapsed until police with guns arrive and the situation is resolved. This is an example of someone with intent to harm choosing a tool to accomplish that objective.
I think Luke's conclusion that people who choose to carry a gun are either “ignorant, an idiot, or a psychopath“ ignores the fact that there are people in our society who simply want to cause others harm, and says that a fear of those people and a desire to be able to defend against them is irrational.
I agree with Luke that in certain circumstances both parties having a gun will escalate the situation farther then if just one party or no parties had a gun. However even if both parties have a gun, don't both still have a choice in if they use the gun or not? Like this situation where 2 people with guns shot each other. Both of them had the choice to leave the situation, however neither of them took it and now they are both dead. You say that had the guns not been there then the shooting would have happened. But where does the personal responsibility for their actions go? Are not both of them fully responsible for choosing to use their gun?
Luke brought up the Martin-Zimmerman shooting and how does that fit in with free will and the choice to use a gun? I feel Zimmerman had total choice over his actions. He choose to confront someone. That situation turned into a fight in which Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head bashed against the pavement. Because Zimmerman had a gun he then had a choice to make. To continue a fist fight in which he was getting head trauma, or use the gun at his disposal to end the fight. Maybe Zimmerman would have been okay after a short hospital stay. Luke seems of the opinion that it would have been better had the gun not been there, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman may or may not be alive. I say that because there was a gun there, Zimmerman bears the weight of responsibility for choosing using it. He took a life to perhaps save his own. But just because there was a gun there does not mean that Zimmerman HAD to use it.
SWAT, I think you bring up some good points about having tools at our disposal it will change our options when choosing actions. In your situation with the cougar you would still have the option for running away, but the existence of the gun will make you likely to use it. And some people will be likely to use the easiest method of accomplishing a task rather then thinking about the best method. This is the idea of “if they have a gun they will want to use it”. And you make a point that for some people this is true. But is this not saying that because they have options to a situation at their disposal, and are likely to use one rather then another option, they then are not responsible for making the choice? In other words, we fear giving people a powerful tool, because they might not make the right decision to use it. But does it not all come down to a persons decision to use a gun or not use a gun? Could you rephrase what it was that you thought I was missing? I think it went over my head in your post.
Very good points on it all. I think I can agree with the response to the first question.
I see your point about game theory analysis of how a confrontation could go down. it makes some sense. Only concern I think (it's late so I might miss something) is you're accounting for perfect knowledge, 100% application of a weapon if the intent is not to step down from a conflict, and the ability to presume as, bellinger mentioned, that both parties are rational people solving a dispute and one party does not will wanton or explicit harm against the other for whatever purpose (sexual assault, revenge, making bones, race crime, serial murder, etc)
I also don't know if you account for the presumption that everyone is always armed unless proven otherwise which can be factored into a decision to carry, I.e. If someone were to threaten me they would have a weapon, like a gun or blade. I must assume this because we live in a society with millions of weapons and there's a chance they could attack someone who has one even if it's not myself, so why would they go into a fight without being at least equally armed if not superior. They may come in numbers too.
So on one hand an argument could be made that by banning weapons in the hands of the free, it decreases the threat posed by civilians meaning criminals would be able to do more of their crime without needing a gun to shoot good guys with guns.
The problem is if they keep the guns then they now have a significant power advantage over everyone but the police, and cops will still have guns and that will compel to require an armed outlaw in turn.
This is fine if we are submitting to letting crime take place unless a sanctioned police team does the arresting/killing for us. It doesn't work all the time and we have to pay people to do that job but it keeps things tidy for the most part.
But that doesn't help YOU (or me or the individual) when a problem comes knocking, and the police are needed but not available, or they are incompetent at best to begin with.
So the question many Americans face is 'do you want to let some criminal scum have his way with you simply for virtue of holding a pistol, and be defenseless to stop it?' And the implied answer is 'No, you're an American, you will hold your ground and not give in to treachery and thugs!'
Ultimately it's a lot of trust to rely on anyone to get between you and harms way if it comes...
Your risk of being assaulted has almost entirely to do with location and socioeconomics. If you live outside a city, your chances are pretty low; if you live in a moderately affluent place your chances are even lower! Yet the sort of people I see advocating for the constant carry of guns and knives as self-defense weapons on the internet are all 18-25, let's say, white males who live in suburban or rural neighborhoods, basically the lowest risk factor of all time. Your life is not a "true crime" novel. There aren't thugs with chains and knives waiting around every corner in Topeka, Kansas. I grew up in a reasonably nice neighborhood in Philadelphia that bordered on a lot of not-so-nice neighborhoods. I lived in that neighborhood for 25 years, and now I've lived in NYC for 6. I think I've known two people who got mugged, and never at gunpoint. I've never been mugged, never had a gun or even a knife drawn on me. The worst I ever suffered was a beatdown when I was a kid.
Furthermore, this assumption that you are constantly at risk of harm when you are walking down the street ignores what many police studies have shown us: most violent crimes are committed by someone you know. There is no phantom mugger coming to take your wallet and your life. Even if you are mugged, that mugger almost certainly does not have a gun. On the infinitesimal chance that he does, it may not even be loaded! In NYC punishments for crimes with loaded weapons are much more harsh than crimes without.
Throwing out this falderal about "guns are just tools" ignores the fact that a gun is inherently and immediately more lethal. I said it earlier in this thread: the psychological mechanism of pulling a trigger to shoot someone in the back is different than that of jamming an axe into the back of someone's skull. If a person axed an eighteen year old black woman who'd just been in a car accident, we'd institutionalize them! Instead, a person shoots that 18 year old black woman in head and it's castle doctrine. The culture has decided your right to decide you're scared enough to kill someone is greater than a person's right to live, especially if that person is black and you are white.
"Guns are tools" also presumes that humans are rational robots who only act in their best interest. Robot-Zimmerman would've had no racial prejudice, and would've correctly concluded that Martin was a 17 year old kid coming back from the corner store. Actual Human-Zimmerman decided the way to end a tussle that he almost-certainly instigated was to shoot another human being. Zimmerman was certainly in no danger when he instigated the encounter. I'm willing to bet that his life was not in any actual peril when he ended the encounter, either, but the law says it's okay to shoot someone if you think that you maybe-kind of-sort of-might be in danger of dying. Zimmerman might've acted on instinct, and internalized paranoia, not conscious prejudice, but that thought is probably cold comfort to Martin's family.
"Guns are tools" also comes with this corollary of "training and experience overcomes these obstacles," which I'm sure is true to a certain extent, but also ignores, for example, cases where servicemen -- whose training should be the best in the world! -- are involved in lethal domestic violence. If their training was not sufficient to stop them from murdering a spouse, or child, or other loved one, then whose will be?
People do not act rationally when fight or flight is engaged, as Skope said. Assuming that we live in a rational world where everyone acts perfectly at all times, except for the 1% who are INSANE BLOODTHIRSTY CRIMINALS COMING TO KILL ME RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO TIME FOR THE COPS I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF is this really bizarre paranoia that breeds mistrust; you've convinced yourself that your feeling of security is more important a theoretical person's life, so when a real person theoretically threatens your life, you are already willing to pull the trigger.
Also, if you're afraid of being mugged, buy a shitty cheap wallet and put a couple $20's and some old gift cards in it. Decoy wallet all the way.
That being said, it seems to me that the paranoia he is speaking of is part of a wider trend in American society. I won't say that it's purely a right-wing issue, but the conservative mindset definitely seems to be heavily based on this type of paranoia.
Here's a couple of quick examples; I'm sure one could easily come up with a few more.
- "currency debasement"
- government debt -> turning into Greece
- "breakdown of social order" due to erosion of "family values"
You can't have it both ways, man - You can't have people are imperfect and irrational in fight or flight mode, but then have "Except trained people, but even they kill people, so you will be worse." Trained people are still people. They still fuck up, they still don't always act rationally, and they're not nessissarily trained for the situations they end up in, even if they're trained for other things.
Frankly, I'd rather have a cop - for all the faults of police training - armed in that situation than a rifleman. Because the cop's training is focused towards killing as a last resort, he's more likely to go for a capture, rather than a kill - almost the direct opposite from what a rifleman is trained to do. Though, cops still make horrendous mistakes in those situations, and still kill family members on occasion - but I'd be willing to suggest that it's less likely due to what they're trained to do.
I appreciate what you're saying, and what you're getting at, you make a lot of good points, and I agree with most of what you said - but what you're saying in that section is such a vast oversimplification that I can't take that part seriously.
But even so A: You don't need to prepare for what happens 99% of the time because that's going to already be part of your routine, you prepare for the 1% outlier cases; which is why people have spare tires, windshield breakers, first-aid kits, fire extinguishers, handguns, aircraft have oxygen masks and floating seat cushions, and so on.
The question then is, can we trust human beings to carry guns in public to protect themselves against outlier cases, and are we OK with the application of that violence in response to an incident? Are we OK with the situations where the wrong thing happens, and is the cost to benefit ratio something we can afford?
Also, if I ever gain the power of time travel, I'm going to set up shop right across from the O.K. Corral with another corral, and call it the Bloody Excellent Corral. But that's neither here nor there.
You know what's there in the daytime? A bunch of cafes and restaraunts.
At night, a bunch of nightclubs and all night kebab places.
When you go to this place you tend to get drunk or tipsy or high. In these states it is very hard to make any rational decisions in a hurry. If you're the designated driver you also have this extra weight of protecting friends who don't have all their faculties.
It's a great place for a fight. I wonder if I the necessary tools were sprinkled amongst the people that frequent the areas. Instead of fights and bruises or stair downs or push and shove confrontations. You will 100% end up with increased homicide rate (from zero).
Making it slightly difficult to get a gun is the difference between no deaths to multiple deaths.
From my youth it has become much safer as the police roam around the area till all the clubs shut down. Here is an educational show's take on these items.
See I'll explain the analogy further.
Spare tires, windshield breakers, first aid kits, fire extinguishers, hand guns, aircraft, oxygen masks and floating seat cushions are all circles. All circles in this analogy can be used to kill someone else. All these circles could also be called "tools".
Now can you finish the analogy?
The large circle is representative of one thing which is specifically a weapon, which has a primary use case of gravely wounding or killing someone. Yes, you got it, it's the gun!
Now here is a skit that we could use as an analogy to our little debate say where Dave, Luke and others are coming from.
See Vinny is the portion of the American public who feel as if they need to carry a gun.
They are paranoid due to a multitude of influences on their life, whether it be watching American News or being in the mafia. In addition to this he has easy access to weapons, whether it be retail or distributed by his Mafia captain.
In this situation he is cordially invited to a surprise party thrown by his friends for him.
When he is surprised in a situation where he is feeling suspicious or paranoid he lashes out with his well trained instincts and precision that he learned when handling weapons to result in killing nearly all his friends.
If we removed the gun from Vinny, he would be suspicious, paranoid, surprised and then happy because he gets to have birthday cake with this friends and your Aunt's pasta.
No one is advocating that drunk people should be armed. Designated driver could be, especially in an area where drinking and trouble is prevalent.
Meanwhile, I wasn't able to get online for the last few days, so what follows are some posts I wrote on Saturday...
The main difference between the USA and these other countries is that Americans think self defense by killing others with guns is an acceptable course of action. The people who "simply want to cause others harm" are psychopaths, or otherwise mentally disturbed people. There is NO defending against these people.
If someone wants to commit premeditated murder, no legal gun ownership for self defense will stop that from happening. If someone wants you, specifically you, dead, they will kill you in a way that you don't see coming, and in a way that you can't protect yourself from. Having a gun yourself will not help.
If someone wants to kill in a predetermined way, but in an indiscriminate manner, no legal gun ownership for self defense will prevent that from happening. The reason is that terrorists will use non-gun methods like bombings, flying planes into buildings, other suicide attacks, or otherwise killing from a distance in time or space.
Massacres in schools and cinemas and other places make the news because they are relatively rare, compared to the vast majority of gun deaths. We can't decide policy on gun ownership on these events because they are planned, by those who carry them out, to be as harmful and disruptive as possible.
What other cases are there where someone goes out with the intention to kill? Not to harm, as that is a very fuzzy word, but to kill? Nobody, even criminals who want to rob and steal, actively intends or plans to kill their victims. Why would they?
So what it comes down to, in America, is that your property is worth more to you than the criminal's life is to them. This is FUCKED UP!
In the UK, if you kill anyone with a gun, you are in the wrong. There is no situation where having a gun and using it against anyone, even someone breaking into your home, is condoned by the law. Your response has to be appropriate to the threat, and guns are always inappropriate. Outside of America, the lives of others are worth more than inconvenience to you. Because that is what it comes down to, in the end. Criminals are shot, and the shooters aren't punished, simply because of convenience.
It's inconvenient to take your family to an upstairs room and hide, or take them out the back while criminals come in through the front of the house. It's inconvenient, when robbed, to fill out insurance from to have your stuff replaced. It's inconvenient to even have home insurance in the first place. It's inconvenient to keep your irreplaceable valuables hidden, rather than out on display.
It's way more convenient to simply kill someone coming into your home, despite having no evidence they mean to kill you. Because, and here's the sticking point, there is simply no evidence that they intend to harm you.
For example, some houses near my girlfriend's parents house were broken into, with laptops and iPad stolen from living rooms. Now, when we stay over there, we simply take our laptops and iPads upstairs to the bedroom overnight. If someone broke into the house, the idea that they might want to cause anyone physical harm is just laughable. The idea that they should be killed for wanting a laptop is just horrific!
You have to separate premeditated murder out from consideration. You also have to separate out terrorism, as politically motivated killings will happen anywhere (Boston, London, Madrid, etc, etc). You also have to separate out attacks by those with known mental problems and school massacres. These things are impossible to legislate against.
Logically, the best situation for reducing gun death is for only criminals and specialized police to be armed. It's the best way. Others can own guns for sport, but nobody is allowed to use guns against any human, any time, ever. Not even pointing a gun for intimidation, or displaying a gun as deterrent. All guns should be locked in safes or cases unless being used for sports or hunting purposes.
This means that if someone has a gun in public, they can be presumed to be a criminal. In fact, they are a criminal, by these new rules. This will be the new measure of "worth of life".
Game theory states:
If an armed criminal threatens violence with a gun, they can assume that nobody will be able to threaten their life. THIS IS GOOD. It means that they can safely rob anyone of their possessions without any physical harm. Everyone can hand over anything valuable. This is inconvenient, sure, but probably nobody will die.
The police can respond knowing that the perpetrator WAS WILLING TO POSSIBLY KILL someone. They didn't kill someone, but the fact they used a gun for intimidation is enough to know they are a criminal. They can make a measured response, with the default position being taking the person alive. It might be inconvenient not to shoot them, but let's hope police officers trained and allowed to use guns are also trained to put up with inconvenience.
This is how the rest of the developed world works! And it really does work. Criminals aren't indiscriminately killing people! Nobody feels the need to kill people to protect property.
Add guns to the situation above? Everything changes. Every situation is now dangerous for EVERYONE, not just for the criminals and the police. This is what you live with in America. Constant danger.
If you passed a law saying ALL non-sport public gun use is illegal and punishable, that will be a start. It will be inconvenient for the victims of robberies for a while, but inconvenience is okay for reducing danger to everyone.
Again it comes back to convenience.
Also, in the rest of the world, people are given a second chance. Kids gang up around a single victim and intimidate or attack them. They'll probably not murder anyone, and when they grow up, they'll probably not be a stupid kid any more. They are probably just poor or uneducated.
Or someone is just angry at you for something you've done. Road rage is understandable. You've just smashed up their car, and it looks like they might attack you. Should you kill them to defend yourself, with the assumption being them attacking you makes their life less valuable?
The entire idea of assigning value to life in any situation, and then using that valuation to determine if they should die or not is flawed.
Which is why I started off by saying I'm a not-killing absolutist. In NO situation should you ever kill someone. Even if that means you dying, you don't have the right to decide to take the life of someone else. Never. In every situation you should do all you can to escape, to avoid conflict, to deflect harm, to fight back as hard as possible. But not killing.
SWATrous is right that humans are not rational actors in stressful situations. Which means that game theory doesn't work in situations where killing is permissible in some cases and not permissible in others. Humans with guns will always default to the position that their killing is permissible.
Game theory only works if you assume humans are irrational, but then put rules in place to minimize deadly responses. If we put in place these rules (no legal gun use for any self-defense reason ever, and no intentional or preemptive killing ever) then game theory works.
We MUST protect all humans from irrational humans. Not allowing any guns for self defense ever is most logical course of action. You know, like the rest of the developed world outside of the USA.
It is not uncommon in the US to for people to secretly (sometimes publicly) hope for something really bad to happen to someone that we witness breaking the law. We want to see the mass murderer die in the police chase. We want to see the guy who cut us off get a ticket from the police officer parked around the corner. We want to read about home invasions where the perp got shot. We like our revenge.
For good or bad it is the dominant American perspective.
EDIT: what is wrong with the designated sober person being armed?
If an adult kills another adult we want to see revenge. If an adult kills a child or a dog/cat then the gloves come off. In this case the percieved level of innocence lost has a huge impact on our desire for revenge.
Even areas where loss of life is not occurring we want to see some sort of revenge that goes beyond mere justice. How many members of this very forum have expressed an interest in seeing Fox News 'die in a fire' or expressed glee at various Republican politicians getting their comeuppance?
Read my latest posts for the explanation as to why your idea of designated sober killers is utterly fucked up on so many level.
This isn't something that only applies to the question of self-defense with a gun, though; it's a general principle that people need to accept. When you take any action at all with drastic consequences you need to account for the fact that your own judgement is subject to many flaws.
However, I would still argue that if someone attacks you it's typically the better outcome that they die than you. Is this an absolute principle? Of course not; there are plenty of situations where this is not the case. More importantly, though, far better still are outcomes where neither of you die.
I strongly agree that you should almost never respond to apparent threats with lethal force; this is simply because that tends to result in better overall outcomes. Why? Because of the situations that involve neither person dying, which are clearly the best outcomes. Not using lethal force should be the default course of action. Indeed, even if you think it's "kill or be killed", the chance that you are wrong and there are better ways out is still enough that lethal force is still likely to be wrong. No, you should not, for the reasons I've stated above, and common sense besides. The mere fact that someone attacks someone else clearly doesn't make it a good idea to end their life. Besides that, I don't think their life is "less valuable" even if they do attack you; I don't take an absolutist view on the point I made (as is clear from the language I used), and the value judgement relates to effects on the lives of other people rather than being an assignation of lesser worth to the attacker.
I disagree strongly with this.
First of all, a value judgement is inherent in any decision you make, regardless of whether you make it explicitly, or if it's merely implicit in the decision itself. Attempting to avoid making such a value judgement does not make it go away.
One makes decisions that may help or harm other people on a daily basis, and those decisions, by their nature, involve value judgments of this type. Yes, they may not involve people's lives, but for the most part this is simply a matter of scale. Decisions involving peoples' lives just need to be taken much more seriously because of what's at stake.
You simply cannot avoid such decisions altogether. For example, even if individuals don't tend to make these kinds of decisions, governments definitely do. A fair number of the decisions governments make can cause people to live or die, or at least cause them significant suffering.
As a voting citizen, it would simply be negligent not to make those kinds of judgments with regards to the actions of your government, because those decisions will be made regardless.
Even if you assert that no one has any right to make that kind of decision, decisions like it will still be made anyway; the main result is that you (and other people who take your position) will merely spend less time thinking critically about them.
I cannot agree with the absolutist position. I think it's an essential principle, and almost always correct in most normal situations, but when framed as an absolutist statement it simply isn't true.
What bothers me about the U.S. is the tendency to glorify it. Clearly it isn't good...